If It Bleeds, It Leads (and the ACA Doesn’t Cover That)

July 15th, 2014 at 7:07 am

Over at PostEverything…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments in reply to "If It Bleeds, It Leads (and the ACA Doesn’t Cover That)"

  1. Robert buttons says:

    Way too soon to shout “mission accomplished”. When we get a good handle on the costs and when executive orders permit the whole law to take effect then we can talk about efficacy.

  2. Larry Signor says:

    “efficacy”, I like that word. The ACA is working and the word is spreading. It will just get better as the whole law takes effect. Who can imagine an America without SS? One day soon, the ACA will achieve that same status. [When it becomes single payer]. Short all the Treasuries you like, but remember which side your bread is buttered on.

  3. Tom in MN says:

    I agree about the lack of positive news stories. There is a bit of improvement in that with the stories that talk about a government failure every now and then they think to mention that fact that there have been budget cuts that affect government’s ability to function. It’s not much of a mystery why the IRS does not have a proper system in place to backup computers and save its employees emails and this applies to just about every other problem too. If there were a reasonable amount of funding for the VA, they would hire more doctors to get the wait times down. Do more with less is what leads to fudging the numbers to hide the real problems. Stupid thing is that doing more with less often costs more in the long run, say in lives lost while waiting to see a doctor.

  4. Robert Salzberg says:

    As a physical therapist working in home health, I’ve seen directly that hospitals in my area have been more focused on follow-up after discharge in the past few years.

    But a strong caveat is that I’ve also seen a general increase in the work-around to re-admission.

    If a patient is discharged from the hospital one of the covered conditions that will get the hospital fined for excessive re-admissions, the work-around is to not re-admit but instead keep the patient in the ER.

    ER care is generally more expensive in general than in-patient, (not ICU), hospital care so the saving from reduced re-admissions may be less impressive than the statistics show.

    More follow-up means more home care, more physician visits, and more rehab which are all less expensive than hospital care and likely lead to better outcomes for the patients which is a good thing.